Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?

Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
2. EVOLUTION OF PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY
“This project believes in transparency and quality. It has regularly updated its activities,
approaches and strategies.”
Kumbha Raj Lama, DoF
“Administrative and operational costs of the project seem much higher than the programme
costs because of the parallel structure created for project implementation.”
Balaram Adhikari, DoF
Various issues are important in considering the manner of NSCFP’s
implementation, but fi rst and foremost is the long time period that the project has
covered. As remarked in the introduction, this has provided a major opportunity to
both develop a long term vision, and to adapt according to circumstances. Twenty
years ago, the direct implementation of development projects by donors, with a
number of expatriates in key positions, was the norm. For a community forestry
project, the Department of Forests was then the obvious implementing partner,
given the relatively weak nature of civil society organisations and the fact that the
forests concerned are State property. In fact, in the fi rst exploratory phase, SDC
channelled almost all funding directly through the Department of Forests under
so-called “Red Book funding 3 ,” and had only minimal local staffi ng – plus a
resident expatriate adviser and periodic consultants. It was in the second and
subsequent phases that the move was taken to make a signifi cant split in
fi nancing between “Red Book” and direct funding – the latter covering activities
such as human resource development, action research and agroforestry. These
were managed through separate project staff and offi ces (in Kathmandu and at
district level), with strong involvement of expatriate staff in all aspects of project
cycle management as well as technical assistance.
The pattern of separate project offices, once set, remained to the end of NSCFP.
The establishment of parallel structures is widely questioned in development
circles today, but given the multi-partnership model of the project that developed,
it would have been extremely diffi cult to operate in any other way especially during
the confl ict period. A team of specialised and dedicated full time project staff was
essential for the same reason. A similar modality may be observed in other projects,
such as the DFID-funded Livelihoods Forestry Project (LFP) and the former Nepal
Australia Community Forestry Project (NACFP).
3 The Red Book is the budget for the entire estimated Government of Nepal expenditure for one fi nancial year. It is
drawn up annually by the Ministry of Finance, and covers all available funds - from own sources, and from foreign
agency grants and loans. Under “Red Book” donor funding, the Government of Nepal agrees to undertake certain
activities in line with their regular duties and is then reimbursed on a timely basis by the donor, based on actual
expenses. Effectively, this is budget support. By contrast, non-government organisations such as FECOFUN
were contracted to implement specifi c activities on behalf of NSCFP; they did not receive budget support.
5